1. Field of Invention
This invention generally relates to methods for arranging for attendees at a social event, and more particularly, to minimizing the chance that two attendees at a first event will simultaneously attend a second social event, and even more particularly when the social event is related to date matching services.
2. Background
Single individuals looking to meet new people for possible dating make use of a plurality of methods. Social events have been the long-standing vehicle for meeting potential date partners. Furthermore, recent advents, such as “speed-dating,” singles dinner groups, and other in-person social events have been developed to facilitate the introduction of participants to one another with an offering service acting as mediator. With the advent of the Internet, virtual events, such as “online speed-dating” and “facilitated online chat” have also been for the sole purpose of introducing participants to one another in order to facilitate the dating process. The goal of these processes in a day and age of tight schedules and frenetic lifestyles is to maximize the number of potential partners one can come in contact with in a most efficient manner.
For example, a “speed-dating” service will introduce a single individual to as many as forty individuals through the vehicle of “mini-dates” at a single event. Each mini-date is a predetermined and prearranged interaction between the individual and a prospective partner during a window of opportunity from three to ten minutes. These mini-dates are arranged in seriatum, usually at a single location. In contrast, a singles dinner group will typically arrange six to eight single people to meet for dinner at a restaurant and sit at the same table. The service would facilitate the invitation of the people based upon predetermined criteria, arrange for the restaurant and arrange for the invitations. Online speed-dating or online chat introduction services facilitate online connections between an individual and many others, one connection at a time. This is done over the Internet through use of textual communication, audio communication or visual communication. Again, two individuals are paired for a limited window of opportunity, usually three to ten minutes. In all cases, each of the participants of each interaction decides following the event or communication whether or not they would like to communicate with any of the persons with which they have interacted in the future.
By way of example, in the case of speed-dating, this is done by indicating on a scorecard a “yes” or “no” for each person that the individual has met. When two parties indicate a mutual interest in each other, the service acting as a go-between brokers the exchange of contact information for those participants who matched. In other words, when any two people who have met during one of the speed-dating mini-dates each indicate that they would like to meet the other, the service will notify each of the participants that a match has occurred and provide them information necessary for contacting the other party.
Methods such as those known from U.S. Pat. No. 5,920,845 have been developed to make the process of meeting people more efficient by automating certain aspects of the process. In this method, each of the participants at a date matching event are assigned a unique identification code. The identification code is displayed in plain sight by each of the participants during the event so that it is readily observable by a plurality of other participants. Each participant is then provided a window of opportunity to introduce themselves to the other participants and interact. The date preferences for each participant are then collected and analyzed by a computer to determine all occurring mutual matches. The mutual match results are then delivered to the participants so that the match participants may then meet to discuss the arrangements for a successive date.
The prior art methods have been satisfactory. However, they suffer from the deficiency that there is no way to prevent the inefficiencies and embarrassments that arise from attending successive dating events and meeting or “mini-dating” someone for which it has already been determined that a match is not going to happen. Specifically, each person at an event such as a speed-dating event, by way of example, essentially accepts or rejects each person with whom they meet. This acceptance or rejection is done discretely on a scorecard. If for example a first man meets a second woman and does not wish to date that second woman, but the second woman wishes to date the first man, she will indicate acceptance on her scorecard while the man will indicate rejection. Therefore, in the privacy of their own homes after the event, the woman will find out that no match has occurred.
The problem arises that if they were to meet again in the future, each person would obviously be aware of the results of their original mini-date experience. The woman may be embarrassed to confront or repeat the mini-date experience with a man who had already rejected her, or the man may feel embarrassment for having rejected the woman or having to be confronted by the woman after rejection, defeating the entire purpose of the scorecard. Furthermore, both parties if forced to mini-date at a second event have wasted an opportunity to mini-date with others by spending time at a mini-date which they both know most likely has no future; there is an opportunity cost to attending an event with people one has already met.
In a second scenario, the man and the woman may meet at a speed-dating event and in fact agree through their scorecards to meet for future dating. After some period of time, the relationship may end and both may desire to return to the speed-dating process. If they both attend the same event and are forced to endure a very uncomfortable mini-date together, or if the breakup was particularly painful for the man or the woman, one of them may leave the event altogether, disrupting the event and resulting in a waste of time for the man and the woman.
In a third likely scenario, the man attends an event and meets four women. The man does not match any of the women because both the women and the man have rejected each other. However, if at some point in the future, the man and all of the women or some of the women who rejected him decide to attend another event at the same time, unbeknownst to each other, even though there may be no hard feelings in this situation, the man has now taken the time to attend an event and in most cases paid a fee, at which he will most likely not have a match with any of these women who represent a significant number of the attendees at the event. Again, this is a waste of time for the man and a waste of time for the women who would most likely have wished to see a different person in the man's position. Again, there is an opportunity cost, even where there is no discomfort, to meeting the same people.
Nothing in the prior art addresses this inefficiency and embarrassment during the social event process. Accordingly, a method for use in connection with date matching or other social events, which minimizes or prevents two people who have met at a first event from meeting at a successive event, is desired.